Granted, there are sects of ALL religions who claim exclusivity to the ONE TRUE WAY to ever lasting life. There are an extremely small number of "sects" within each that provoke and force system of human interaction in their own image. There is an even smaller group within certain "sects" that are willing to kill and be killed with the promise of rewards in heaven/paradise/celestial kingdom.

Disrespect of any kind is unacceptable. Committing murder in response to being disrespected is HEINOUS! Is that not the way of inner-city gang? "Respect me or else!"

Strange thing is,,, whether you are agnostic, atheist, jew, christian, hindu, pagan, buddhist, wiccan or hug a tree, fundamental extreme islamic religions raise their young to believe YOU must be converted, enslaved, or killed. And they are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

So Tom, for the mere fact you hate religion in general does not make you any less conspicuous than anyone else. As-far-as the bible thumper goes,,, a fucking idiot is what he is.

ygmir wrote:so, if someone, somewhere says:"I'm gonna hurt/kill others, if you say or do this certain thing", you'd be in favor of not doing it?

I will defend myself...maybe even torture them...but never kill them!

seems just semantics, then, defend can easily include deadly force.and, torture......very open subject there......some may infer, if you've gone that far, murder is no worse.

AND, as a thinking American, I would NEVER do anything to endanger my own troops! Remember this?

I think that was aimed at "secrets" or, talking/telling about troop movements and such. Civilians had at times, info that could help the enemy know plans, tactics, or equipment.

I'd submit, the troops are there (wherever there is), at least in part, to protect the preachers right to burn said religious documents.

again:you tag the perpetrators, harshly, and every time.but, you don't change your way of life, just because they say to, with treats and violence.

I gotta say, Tom, you're doing a great job here, having to discuss this with several folks at once.I'm going to step out, so you can continue and focus.if you want, I'll come back and discuss our part, when it can be more leisurely.

This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

JStep wrote:This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

And that's fine as long as we know people won't get killed for it! The crowded theater example is perfect for this. WE CANNOT CONTROL THE RULES OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Our freedoms are ours...our sons and daughters over their, are not under our protection! Including civilians trying to help. Fuck the first amendment as long as it keeps them safe!

TomServo wrote:i'D GLADLY FORSAKE MY FREEDOMS IF IT SAVED A HUMAN LIFE. WHAT ABOUT YOU?

No I would not. Where does it end? Do we cave in to the demands of every thug in world who threatens the life of another?

I will not negotiate with such enemies of humanity, nor will I encourage such behavior by capitulating to their demands.

goathead wrote:

TomServo wrote:sure, blame the media...but, they didn't burn that stupid book. Like I said, abolish all media except the Onion!

why not blame the ones who are committing these acts?

Because that would make too much sense wouldn't it? It's so much easier to blame society, religion, the media, etc. Never mind that people can make choices for themselves.

I thought humans were sentient beings? Maybe I was wrong. Or perhaps those who are so willing to forsake their rights are precisely the kind of people who hold their human responsibility in such low regard that they do not deserve such rights. Perhaps we should have an underclass of those who would rather be slaves to oppression, who are not willing to fight for ideals that make humanity as a whole better, who would give up essential freedoms for "safety" under the guise of beneficence.

goathead wrote:but then think of the work "Piss Christ" "Dung Madonna"

weren't their works meant to inflame?

I don't know about Serrano, or whatever his name is, but there are people to whom piss is pretty close to, if not actually, a sacred fluid. And the man was running around healing [s]leopards[/s] lepers, hanging out with prostitutes and tax collectors. I don't think a little piss would hurt him. (not that he existed, but that's a different conversation.) And even then, considering the miracle of transubstantiation maybe it's not even piss as we understand it. Sure it was provocative, deliberately so, but there's places to go with it...
And the African artist with the elephant pooh, well, apparently he uses it in all his work, as a way of connecting with his roots. There's that hat company that advertises that one of its straw hats was eaten by an elephant, crapped out, in fine condition to be worn again. And there's always
the green company that sells elephant poo paper.

And those Danish cartoonists were commissioned by a right-wing paper exactly to piss off muslims. And if you've ever seen them, they were about as insightful as those charming german anti-jewish cartoons of the 30s and 40s.

Edited to add: And many, many people find all sorts of burningman related art offensive.

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

Tom
It was a horrible, stupid, self-aggrandizing act, designed solely to feed the public image and ego of one man, and his followers. I think he showed how good an american (and christian, for that matter) in his blatant disregard for the lives of others. And yes, you wouldn't do that.

It is the heinous acts of expression that are our constitutional tests, because it's easy when it's speech that everybody or almost everybody agrees with. 50 years ago talking about equality for women or GTLB wasn't on the table and now they are widely (but not universally) regarded as good things. I don't think that his actions will ever turn out to be wise or revolutionary, but we cannot know with certainty what despised ideas will turn out to be solid ones.

So, I understand how his actions tear at your heart. I just think that in this case the right thing is also the hard thing. And I'd certainly support any wrongful death suits brought against that asshole.

The Lady with a Lamprey

"The powerful are exploiting people, art and ideas, and this leads to us plebes debating how to best ration ice.Man, no wonder they always win....." Lonesomebri

JStep wrote:This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

And that's fine as long as we know people won't get killed for it! The crowded theater example is perfect for this. WE CANNOT CONTROL THE RULES OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Our freedoms are ours...our sons and daughters over their, are not under our protection! Including civilians trying to help. Fuck the first amendment as long as it keeps them safe!

We don't "know" people will get killed for it, nor should we need to control the rules of other countries. The crowded theater argument doesn't apply to this situation. Fire in a crowded theater is the act of providing deliberately false information for the purpose of inciting panic and chaos. Burning a book is a symbolic act that doesn't lead directly to prescribed actions by any reasonable person. (To head off the "but they're not reasonable" rebuttal, it doesn't matter. You cannot possibly tailor all speech to avoid the possible reactions of the insane.)

And finally, the fact that our people are over there, where our society cannot protect them, also doesn't affect the situation. Their being there is a result of our society putting them there, knowing full well the disposition of some of the inhabitants and their propensity to kill our folks over simple things like a crazy dude in FL burning their book.

Your argument that you would forgo your 1st amendment rights to save the lives of others is commendable and your choice is probably wise. But, it's still your right not to. If the right becomes revocable based on indirect circumstances or suspended because of the possible actions of other, insane, people then its not inalienable and therefor meaningless.

JStep wrote:This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

And that's fine as long as we know people won't get killed for it! The crowded theater example is perfect for this. WE CANNOT CONTROL THE RULES OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Our freedoms are ours...our sons and daughters over their, are not under our protection! Including civilians trying to help. Fuck the first amendment as long as it keeps them safe!

We don't "know" people will get killed for it, nor should we need to control the rules of other countries. The crowded theater argument doesn't apply to this situation. Fire in a crowded theater is the act of providing deliberately false information for the purpose of inciting panic and chaos. Burning a book is a symbolic act that doesn't lead directly to prescribed actions by any reasonable person. (To head off the "but they're not reasonable" rebuttal, it doesn't matter. You cannot possibly tailor all speech to avoid the possible reactions of the insane.)

And finally, the fact that our people are over there, where our society cannot protect them, also doesn't affect the situation. Their being there is a result of our society putting them there, knowing full well the disposition of some of the inhabitants and their propensity to kill our folks over simple things like a crazy dude in FL burning their book.

Your argument that you would forgo your 1st amendment rights to save the lives of others is commendable and your choice is probably wise. But, it's still your right not to. If the right becomes revocable based on indirect circumstances or suspended because of the possible actions of other, insane, people then its not inalienable and therefor meaningless.

Is human life worth our freedom to piss off people... Read Johnny Got his Gun By Dalton Trumbo. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABWyXKT5qt4[/youtube]

JStep wrote:This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

And that's fine as long as we know people won't get killed for it! The crowded theater example is perfect for this. WE CANNOT CONTROL THE RULES OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Our freedoms are ours...our sons and daughters over their, are not under our protection! Including civilians trying to help. Fuck the first amendment as long as it keeps them safe!

We don't "know" people will get killed for it, nor should we need to control the rules of other countries. The crowded theater argument doesn't apply to this situation. Fire in a crowded theater is the act of providing deliberately false information for the purpose of inciting panic and chaos. Burning a book is a symbolic act that doesn't lead directly to prescribed actions by any reasonable person. (To head off the "but they're not reasonable" rebuttal, it doesn't matter. You cannot possibly tailor all speech to avoid the possible reactions of the insane.)

And finally, the fact that our people are over there, where our society cannot protect them, also doesn't affect the situation. Their being there is a result of our society putting them there, knowing full well the disposition of some of the inhabitants and their propensity to kill our folks over simple things like a crazy dude in FL burning their book.

Your argument that you would forgo your 1st amendment rights to save the lives of others is commendable and your choice is probably wise. But, it's still your right not to. If the right becomes revocable based on indirect circumstances or suspended because of the possible actions of other, insane, people then its not inalienable and therefor meaningless.

Is human life worth our freedom to piss off people...

This question is irrelevant. It poses a situation that doesn't exist. It's like you're imagining that there's a guy holding a gun to someone's head and asking you to tell him what color his shirt is and he'll shoot if you answer wrong. In that case your answer is directly related to the harm that may come to the victim. You're playing a direct role in what happens. This is not analogous to the situation at hand. The situation at hand is more akin to you hearing a rumor that if you don't wear a green shirt on Tuesday then some maniac somewhere is probably going to find out and kill someone. Whether you wear a green shirt or not, and whether said maniac does or does not kill anyone has nothing to do with you and your choice of shirt color. Your disrespect to the green shirt on Tuesday cult, pissing them off and causing them to kill people, is not in any way your fault nor should you be forced to wear green shirts on Tuesdays.

JStep wrote:This doesn't seem like it should be so controversial. I can hate the guy who provokes the crazy, but it's still his right to say/write/express what he wants if it doesn't lead *directly* to harm to others. Fire in a crowded theater arguments don't apply, in that situation it's the message itself that leads to harm. To get real philosophical, when we let them dictate to us what we can say or do, then "the terrorists have won" as the cliche goes. I hate the Fred Phelps morons too, but it's their right to say stupid shit. The folks who want to move their Islamic center in NYC that just happens to be 10 blocks from ground zero? They are within their rights too. The guy in FL was stupid, unwise, rash and a total tool. But, that doesn't mean I have the right to take his rights away simply because I hold those opinions.

no, he knew people could die...the government warned him last year. He's a prick! and so are the crazy fucks that killed the UN workers!

And that's fine as long as we know people won't get killed for it! The crowded theater example is perfect for this. WE CANNOT CONTROL THE RULES OF OTHER COUNTRIES! Our freedoms are ours...our sons and daughters over their, are not under our protection! Including civilians trying to help. Fuck the first amendment as long as it keeps them safe!

We don't "know" people will get killed for it, nor should we need to control the rules of other countries. The crowded theater argument doesn't apply to this situation. Fire in a crowded theater is the act of providing deliberately false information for the purpose of inciting panic and chaos. Burning a book is a symbolic act that doesn't lead directly to prescribed actions by any reasonable person. (To head off the "but they're not reasonable" rebuttal, it doesn't matter. You cannot possibly tailor all speech to avoid the possible reactions of the insane.)

And finally, the fact that our people are over there, where our society cannot protect them, also doesn't affect the situation. Their being there is a result of our society putting them there, knowing full well the disposition of some of the inhabitants and their propensity to kill our folks over simple things like a crazy dude in FL burning their book.

Your argument that you would forgo your 1st amendment rights to save the lives of others is commendable and your choice is probably wise. But, it's still your right not to. If the right becomes revocable based on indirect circumstances or suspended because of the possible actions of other, insane, people then its not inalienable and therefor meaningless.

Is human life worth our freedom to piss off people...

This question is irrelevant. It poses a situation that doesn't exist. It's like you're imagining that there's a guy holding a gun to someone's head and asking you to tell him what color his shirt is and he'll shoot if you answer wrong. In that case your answer is directly related to the harm that may come to the victim. You're playing a direct role in what happens. This is not analogous to the situation at hand. The situation at hand is more akin to you hearing a rumor that if you don't wear a green shirt on Tuesday then some maniac somewhere is probably going to find out and kill someone. Whether you wear a green shirt or not, and whether said maniac does or does not kill anyone has nothing to do with you and your choice of shirt color. Your disrespect to the green shirt on Tuesday cult, pissing them off and causing them to kill people, is not in any way your fault nor should you be forced to wear green shirts on Tuesdays.